> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during Last > Call, > please review the current version of the document: > > * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate?
Yes. > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? My address block is correct. Wim and Adam should confirm that their address blocks reflect what they wish to show up in the RFC. > 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your > document. For example: > > > * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another document, > WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that information > (e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in > RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info at > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLqHrNSR3$ > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLqHrNSR3$> > >."). > * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms that > editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial capitalization." > or "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be used > for token names." etc.)? For both of these, the primary resources for style are RFCs 8955, 8956, 9117. The primary terms that require audit and editorial advice for consistency are: "redirect-to-IP", which should have some consistencies to the existing redirection methods in RFC 8955. "flow-spec". Unfortunately there is a wild degree of inconsistency in this document and to some extent in the other RFCs. The full term is "flow specification" and the short term is "flow spec". We would welcome editorial advice for making the uses of the full and short forms consistent within this document. The result of this will be propagated to other new work in IDR for flowspec version 2. > 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the > References section with the following in mind. Note that we will > update as follows unless we hear otherwise at this time: > > > * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current > RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 > (RFC Style Guide). > > > * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be > updated to point to the replacement I-D. > > > * References to documents from other organizations that have been > superseded will be updated to their superseding version. > > > Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use > idnits > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLihDCjZm$ > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLihDCjZm$> > >. You can also help the > IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLmTUTty8$ > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLmTUTty8$> > > > with your document and reporting any issues to them. I believe all references are current. The reference for RFC 7942 may be pruned along with appendix A per the instructions to remove the implementation status as part of publication. > 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: > * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? Not particularly. > * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such > (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). See instructions in Appendix A. > * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited > the same way? Not particularly. > 5) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in > kramdown-rfc? > If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. For > more > information about this experiment, see: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLgviRjxa$ > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLgviRjxa$> > . Given author availability, I would suggest we stick with xml format for this process. However, if there's a desire to convert the document to kdrfc on our behalf, we wouldn't object. > 6) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing AUTH48 > in > GitHub? If so, please let us know and provide all author, AD, and/or document > shepherd GitHub usernames. For more information about this experiment, see: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLtXV62Gh$ > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLtXV62Gh$> > . While I am willing (jhaas-pfrc is my ID), Wim and Adam have not been participating on github for the repository hosting this document. They may answer otherwise. -- Jeff -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
